Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was regularized as Clerk w.e.f. 17.03.1987. He performed the duties of Cashier w.e.f. 30.03.1987 to 16.09.1993. He was to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- on the basis of notification, dated 21.07.1990. He made a representation on 18.08.1999. The same was rejected on 08.10.1999. The petitioner has also made a representation for not considering ineligible candidates for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) on 21.08.2000. It was also rejected on 12.09.2000. Petitioner preferred an Original Application (M) No. 440 of 2000 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal against the rejection of his representations. However, during the pendency of Original Application, the respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) on 10.11.2000. Original Application (M) No. 440 of 2000 was transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP(T) No. 7188 of 2008. Petitioner sought the liberty of the Court to withdraw the same on 06.12.2010, to enable him to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance. Petitioner made a representation on 21.01.2011, seeking pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also against the promotion of respondent No. 2 made on 10.11.2000 to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Managing Director, H.P. Milkfed, Shimla vide Annexure P-12, dated 23.06.2011. The respondent No. 2 has been further promoted as Assistant Manager (Accounts) vide office order, dated 24.03.2012. The order has been placed on record by way of application. 2. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2, has adopted the reply filed by respondent No. 1 on the date of hearing. 3. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the decision of the respondent-Federation to restrict the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- up to 01.09.1998 is illegal, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the respondent No. 2 was not eligible to be considered for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) and, thus, he could also not be further promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 24.03.2012. He also contended that the respondent No. 2 was not eligible to be considered for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) and, thus, he could also not be further promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 24.03.2012. He further contended that his client was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- on the basis of the approval accorded by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh on 18.04.2001 to the Himachal Pradesh Milkfed Employees Service Rules, 1983. 4. Mr. M.R. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have vehemently argued that the petitioner was not entitled to pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- on the basis of clarification, dated 03.11.2001. They also contended that the respondent No. 2 was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). A copy of the DPC proceedings was also permitted to be taken on record during the course of hearing. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. According to the notification, dated 21.07.1990, the scale of Rs.1500-2640/- was to be given up to 40% of the total number of posts of Clerks in a cadre after a minimum period of five years service as Clerk in the cadre and the incumbents were to be designated as Senior Clerks. The petitioner has made a representation on the basis of this notification, dated 21.07.1990 on 18.08.1999, which was rejected on 08.10.1999. 7. The respondent-Federation has sent a proposal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh for amendment of Sr. No. 23 of the H.P. Milkfed Employees Service Rules, 1983. The same was accorded on 18.04.2001. According to the approval at Sr. No. 23, the Clerks/typist/Account Clerk were entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- after 10 years service taken together as Clerks and Senior Clerks to 40% of the total number of posts of Clerks in a cadre and the incumbents were to be designated as Junior Assistants. The petitioner has already completed 10 years of service in 1997 as per the tentative seniority list, Annexure P-15. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been given this pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- (revised Rs.5000-8100/-) only w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide office order, dated 23.06.2011. The petitioner has already completed 10 years of service in 1997 as per the tentative seniority list, Annexure P-15. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been given this pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- (revised Rs.5000-8100/-) only w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide office order, dated 23.06.2011. The basis for restricting it to 1998 is only the clarification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Pay Revision) Department on 03.11.2001. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “1. In such cases, incumbents of the posts of Clerks, who were placed as Junior Assistants on completion of 10 years of service during the period 1.1.96 to 1.9.98 in the pre-revised scale of 1500-2700, were allowed revised equivalent pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- to them and the pay and arrears were drawn and paid to them in the converted scale of `5000-8100 prior to 1.9.1998. The pay of such incumbents is to be re-fixed and drawn in the pay scale of Rs.4400-7000 w.e.f. 1.9.98. However, no recoveries are to be made.” 8. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh has already given approval to the service rules, as noticed above, on 18.04.2001, whereby the incumbents, who have completed 10 years of service together as Clerks and Senior Clerks to the extent of 40% of the total number of posts of Clerks in a cadre were eligible to get the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- and the incumbents were to be designated as Junior Assistants. The notification has been issued on 03.11.2001. The rules, which have been approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh could not be superseded merely on the basis of notification issued on 03.11.2001. In case any amendment was further required to be carried out, the same procedure was to be followed, which has led to the approval of earlier amendment in the H.P. Milkfed Employees Service Rules, 1983 on 18.04.2001. The instructions cannot substitute the Rules. The instructions can only supplement and not supplant. However, in the present case, the respondent-Federation has decided to supersede the Rules, merely on the basis of notification issued on 03.11.2001. Thus, the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation has erred in law by relying upon the notification, dated 03.11.2001 instead of Rules duly approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The respondent-Federation is bound by the rules duly approved by the Board. Thus, the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation has erred in law by relying upon the notification, dated 03.11.2001 instead of Rules duly approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The respondent-Federation is bound by the rules duly approved by the Board. In view of this, the petitioner was entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700/- (revised Rs.5000-8100/-) from 01.09.1998 onwards as well. 9. Now, the Court will advert to the manner in which the respondent No. 2 has been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). The post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) is required to be filled up as per Rule 2.9-16 of the H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited Revised Employees Service Rules, 1994, which reads thus: “16. Senior Assistant (Accounts): “By promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis from amongst the common cadre of Clerks/senior Clerks/Junior Assistants with atleast 15 years combined regular service, provided further that eligible candidate should have atleast 5 years experience of Accounts”. It is evident from the phraseology employed in Rule 2.9-16 that the candidate must have at least 5 years experience of Accounts for being considered for the post of Senior Assistant(Accounts). The petitioner has worked as Cashier w.e.f. 30.03.1987 to 16.09.1993. This fact has not been denied by the respondent-Federation in the reply. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 06.10.2000 to consider the eligible candidates for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). The Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into consideration 8 years experience of respondent No. 2 while working in Store Purchase, Engineering and General Sections, which involves accounts related works. The reasoning given by the Departmental Promotion Committee is that since there were no separate posts of Clerks/Sr. Clerks/ Junior Assistants in accounts and the incumbents working in these posts are interchanged in all Sections of the Office, depending on exigency of the work, as such, experience of respondent No. 2 in accounts related branches, which was more than eight years could be considered. The Departmental Promotion Committee has erred in law by considering the experience of respondent No. 2 in Store Purchase, Engineering and General Sections towards experience in accounts. The incumbent as per the rules must have 5 years’ experience of accounts. The person who works in Store Purchase, Engineering and General Sections does not gain any experience in accounts. His duties are related to Store Purchase Engineering and General Sections related work. 10. The incumbent as per the rules must have 5 years’ experience of accounts. The person who works in Store Purchase, Engineering and General Sections does not gain any experience in accounts. His duties are related to Store Purchase Engineering and General Sections related work. 10. Though it is for the Departmental Promotion Committee to see whether the incumbents is qualified or not and the scope of judicial review is limited. However, in this case, the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee is perverse on the face of it. It is not only against the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, but it also defies the logic and common sense. 11. In comparison to respondent No. 2, the petitioner has more than six years service as Cashier, but he has been overlooked and the respondent No. 2, who has no experience in accounts at all, has been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) on 10.11.2000. The respondent No. 2 has been further promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 23.03.2012. Since the initial promotion of respondent No. 2 as Senior Assistant (Accounts) is bad in law, his further promotion as Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 23.03.2012 is also declared illegal. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-4, dated 08.10.1999, Annexure P-7, dated 12.09.2000, Annexure P-8, dated 10.11.2000, Annexure P-12, dated 23.06.2011 and Annexure A-1, dated 24.03.2012 are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to reconvene the Departmental Promotion Committee and to consider the petitioner and other eligible persons strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) and also for filling up the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to release the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1998 onwards and also to pay the arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, within a period of six weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.